Is there any reason for the hysterical reactions that the film Padmavati has evoked in the past few weeks? The movie is said to be based on the fictionalised poem ‘Padmavat’, penned by the Sufi poet Malik Muhhamad Jayasi and is a 16th century literary creation.

Though woven around the historically corroborated siege of Chittor in 1303 CE by Alauddin Khilji, the then Sultan of Delhi, the poem that praises the legendary beauty of Rani Padmavati of Chittor, is believed to be a work of fiction by most historians. The historians, despite repeated endeavors have been unsuccessful in confirming the existence of Rani Padmavati or the widely circulated folklore that her beauty lured Khalji to attack Chittor.

Advertisement

But the fables involving Rani Padmavati or Padmini of Chittor are widespread and have found expression in various literary works like Gora Badal Padmini Chaupai (1589 CE) by Hemratan or Yagneshwar Bandyopadhyay’s Mewar (1884).

Jayasi’s Padmavat depicts the love story of the Rajput ruler of Chittor Raja Ratan Sen and the princess of Singhal (Sri Lanka), Padmavati. Raja Ratan Sen attacked Singhal upon hearing about the beauty of Padmavati from a talking bird but was imprisoned by Padmavati’s father, Gandharv Sen, the ruler of Singhal. As Ratan Sen was about to be executed, Gandharv Sen was informed about his royal status and the latter decided to unite the king and his daughter in matrimony.

According to the poem, Ratan Sen was already married to Nagmati and upon his return to Chittor, a rivalry ensued between his wives. In the meantime, Alauddin Khilji, the ambitious ruler of Delhi Sultanate learnt about the unparalleled beauty of Rani Padmavati from the banished Chittor courtier Raghav Chetan, who prompted Khalji to attack Chittor. With the dual ambition of acquiring Padmavati for himself and creating a Muslim empire, Khalji decided to attack Chittor which proved to be a herculean task as the fort was impenetrable.

But the repeated threats of attack from Khilji compelled Ratan Sen to agree to a truce and as a term of the truce Khalji demanded a glance at the legendary Padmavati. After initial refusals, Padmavati finally agreed to let Khalji see her reflection in the mirror. As Jayasi tells it, that one glance made Khalji more determined to possess Padmavati and he cunningly imprisoned Raja Ratan Sen.

Though Ratan Sen was later rescued by his trusted aides, Gora and Badal, he died fighting Devpal, the Rajput king of neighboring Kumbhalner as the latter insulted Padmavati by offering to marry her at the time her husband was detained by Khalji. The death of Ratan Sen encouraged Khalji to attack Chittor for the second time and assuming defeat, Padmavati decided to perform Juahar or self-immolation along with all the women of Chittor. The mass suicide of the women was followed by the heroic battle between the Rajputs and the Muslims where the former were defeated. But Alauddin Khilji’s dream of possessing Padmavati turned into despondency at the macabre sight that greeted him when he entered the fort.

This literary piece appears to have inspired Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s movie. The controversy surrounding Padmavati commenced as soon as Bhansali declared his project and expressions of dissent could be found in Shri Rajput Karni Sena vandalizing the sets and launching protests at various shooting locations. These aggressive protests are based on rumors of an intimate dream sequence between Khalji and Padmavati and also the fact that Padmavati, played by Deepika Padukone has been filmed dancing without a veil (purdah).

The protest has been successful in vilifying the content of the film and the final nail in the coffin came when the CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) refused to certify it on the ground of an incomplete application form. The governments of some states have already announced they will not allow screening of the film. The support extended by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has resulted a senior leader from Haryana calling her demonic and demanding that her nose be cut off a la the character Surpanakha in the Ramayana.

The fanaticism went to the extent of declaring bounties for beheading Bhansali and Padukone and a dead body being hung in front of the Jaipur fort instead of an effigy as a sign of protest. Such acts of violence have drawn criticism from all sections of population. The Vice President of India has condemned the act as a shame to a democratic society and urged citizens to protest in a constitutional manner.

It should be noted that period dramas based on the myth of Rani Padmavati are not new.  Movies and television series like Chittoor Rani Padmini and Chittod ki Rani Padmini ka Johur, have been aired in the past without much diatribe. So why this hatred and intolerance now?

The answer may be found in the existing social structure and the transformation of Indian society. An empirical study will reveal the rise of this strange pattern of intolerance towards creative expression. Forced censorship like this has been unheard of in other parts of the world, although a fatwa against a Pakistani actress was mentioned in the autobiography of Benazir Bhutto.

From a sociological standpoint, there are varied theoretical paradigms which can be used to describe this state of affairs and one such paradigm is anomie. The transition of society from traditional to modern has created a discrepancy between various sections of the population in terms of education and belief systems. The juxtaposition of the progressive and traditional has created a rift which is getting difficult to bridge. The intolerance can also be explained as part of the cultural hegemony propagated by rulers; deviations are treated as serious acts of crime, thus requiring constant subjugation in the form of threats of violence.

Structural Functionalists will evaluate the situation in terms of manifest and latent functions where the manifest function of such protest is to protect Indian culture and myths, and the latent function assists a political agenda that masquerades as a cultural protest. Another interesting observation is that the threat is meted out only to the leading lady of the movie while discounting male actors which hints at inherent misogyny in the social fabric.

Threats of violence and murder or criminal intimidation are an offence under section 506 of IPC, but police and the government have remained inactive so far. It is also important to bring to notice the role played by the media, visual or otherwise, in sensationalising these protests. It is cause for lament that in a country where a majority of the population is maimed with problems like poverty, low income and seasonal unemployment, politicians and the media choose to weave an issue out of a non-issue.

Creative rights have been granted by the Indian Constitution but sadly some parties and groups are turning into national level Khap Panchayats, dictating their own terms and engaging in a form of disturbing surveillance to curb any form of dissent. Creation and recreation of myths and engaging in creative dialogue have always been the hallmark of a progressive country but the backward moving curve of logic presents a grave problem to the intellectuals of this country.

A closer inspection of the myth surrounding Rani Padmavati will reveal similarities with the epic Ramayana, which reinforces the hypothesis that the poem is a work of fiction. The social setting of Ramayana and Padmavat make reference to Singhal or modern-day Sri Lanka. Both have a female character with jaw-dropping good looks who becomes the main reason of confrontation between two powerful rulers. The death of the leading ladies – by suicide in the case of Sita and self-immolation in the case of Padmavati – mark the conclusion. The internecine wars referred in the two works are contrived by a villainous third person – Raghav Chetan in Padmavat and Surpanakha in Ramayana. With no reference to the existence of Rani Padmavati being made in the works of Amir Khusrau, the Sufi poet who accompanied Alauddin Khilji in his mission to capture Chittor, it is indeed suggestive that modern-day protestors are fighting a phantom.

Dynamism and tolerance that characterise the Indian population are getting replaced with bigotry, intolerance and unbridled fanaticism, manifesting themselves in the form of censorship and stifling of creative expression. It can only be hoped that leaders and intellectuals will come forward to negate this trend and protests of this intensity will be reserved for the major problems our country is facing.

(The writers are, respectively, a Senior Research Fellow of the Indian Statistical Institute and an Associate Professor of the Maulana Azad College, Kolkata.)